http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IT WAS ANOTHER DAZZLING WEEK for Gov. George W.
Bush. With his jabs at the GOP Congress (of which there actually were
few; it’s just that the clueless media concentrated on them) he’s taken
another giant step at winning the Republican nomination and then the
presidency. Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, with the shadow of Newt Gingrich
hovering behind them, are not popular men in America. That’s not fair,
from my standpoint, but it’s the truth. Bush has to set himself apart
from the Gingrich image, and he’s done it, most recently with a
brilliant “Slouching toward Gomorrah” speech on education at the
Manhattan Institute.

The pundits, who believe it’s still 1988 and are covering the campaign
as though it were, all had the same line: Bush is acting like Clinton in
’92 and has done a Sister Souljah routine. But that’s not accurate.

Clinton had wrapped up the Democratic nomination in ’92 when he attacked
the evil sister on June 13 in an effort to distance himself from Jesse
Jackson. (It’s hilarious that Jackson was Clinton’s personal pastor
during his Monica troubles last year; neither man has any shame.) But
Clinton wasn’t running ahead in the general election polls at the time:
in fact, in some data he was in third place, behind President Bush and
Ross Perot (who wouldn’t drop out of the race until July 16, only to
reappear in the fall). It wasn’t until just before the Democratic
Convention that Clinton took off in the polls and never looked back.

William Bennett didn’t take offense at Bush’s comments, writing in the
Oct. 7 New York Times, “His is a sound political strategy, based on an
accurate assessment of the state of our culture... The conservative
movement should publicly and repeatedly declare that its noble goal is
to make American society more humane, civil, responsible and just.”

The only candidate who has a chance of defeating Bush for the nomination is John
McCain, and as the New York Times/Washington Post candidate, he’s
perceived, correctly, as less culturally conservative than Bush. In
fact, if McCain does gather steam in New Hampshire, as polls suggest,
this will simply bring more money to the Texas Governor and toughen him
up.

As I've said, liberals are perplexed. In the current New York, Michael
Tomasky reacts to the Manhattan Institute speech: “This is great
politics, and smart P.R. But if people like me approve, then somebody,
somewhere, surely disapproves. How long can Bush bash the right?” Again,
an example of hyperbole: Bush has hardly “bashed” the right; he’s merely
jabbed them, and to great effect. But give Tomasky credit for figuring
out Bush’s strategy better than most of his myopic, lazy colleagues. He
concludes: “Gary Bauer can cry all night about Bush’s selling their
party out, but [he’s] fighting the last war. Bush is fighting the next
one... But it’s not likely [rabid right-wingers] can stop Bush, or make
him change very much. There’s a word for a candidate like that, or three
words: tough to beat.”

My only concern with Bush is that he too often backpedals after
criticizing allies. He handled the “Buchanan problem” without much
finesse. And he needs to ratchet up the terms of the election,
articulating bigger ideas that other candidates don’t have the guts to.
No one can say that he’s a blank slate on issues anymore; as promised,
he’s rolling out his policy statements one by one. But he’s also
succeeding in bringing optimism to the right, talking relentlessly about
success and not failure, and conveying his enthusiasm for the future.

Although the 2000 presidential campaign is probably more unique than any
we can remember, it bears the closest similarity to 1960’s. Back then,
it was also a prosperous time for the country, but there was an
undefined restlessness, a need for a change from the status quo.

Obviously, after the Clinton years, that change is even more desired and
necessary today.

Bradley

On the Democratic side, the contest just gets uglier. I hope that
Bradley wins the nomination; he’ll be easier to defeat than a scabbed-up
Gore. Bradley’s an egghead, an Adlai Stevenson, who won’t be able to
pull off his “thinking man” charade during a general election. He’d
probably win New York and New Jersey, but wouldn’t have a chance in the
South, most of the Midwest and the Western states. California would
probably be a tossup.

But Gore probably won’t be the nominee: he’s stuck by the scandal-tarred
Tony Coelho, and just last week appointed Donna Brazile as his campaign
manager. Doesn’t this guy ever learn from his own mistakes? Brazile was
fired from the Dukakis campaign in ’88 when she slandered Vice President
Bush with adultery rumors; that strategy was just a sneak peek at the
Clinton operation four years later. In a fawning profile of Brazile in
the Oct. 11 New York Times (which has devoted its pages to resuscitating
Gore), Melinda Henneberger writes: “All of which might explain why Ms.
Brazile seemed so genuinely unfazed by the problems facing Al Gore’s
presidential campaign. She knows about coming back.” Ugh.

In the Oct. 18 Newsweek, reporter and TV pundit Howard Fineman is
typically out of touch. He compares the Democratic contest to 1984’s,
with Gore as Walter Mondale and Bradley as Gary Hart. That’s absurd, for
while Gore is trawling for the same machine endorsements and money that
Mondale locked up, it’s an entirely different election. First, Mondale
was running against an extremely popular incumbent president, while this
year there’s an open seat; second, Hart’s comet-like challenge came out
of nowhere and he didn’t have the money to capitalize on it, while
Bradley is even with Gore on that front; finally, Mondale wasn’t saddled
with a corrupt president’s legacy. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective chief
executive but no one would say he was immoral or self-absorbed. Also,
don’t forget that Bill Clinton, in his peculiarly twisted way, wants
Gore to lose. He can’t face the possibility that his vice president
would succeed in office and not be reviled for being a lying scumbag.

The new Gore look

A source in the Gore campaign tells me that their candidate will wage a
very negative race against Bradley, part of the Robert Shrum/Brazile
strategy, that will build on his attacks on the former Knick at the
Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa last Saturday night. If that’s true,
Gore is finished. At that event, Gore again challenged Bradley to a
debate a week and then took direct shots at the former New Jersey
Senator’s congressional record. He said: “In 1981, when Reaganomics was
put up for a vote, and some Democrats felt that, for their political
survival they had to vote for the slashing budget cuts that raised child
poverty and diminished health care coverage and hurt public schools, I
never walked away. I decided to stay and fight... When Newt Gingrich
took over the Congress and tried to reinforce Reaganomics, some walked
away. I decided to stay and fight.”

Well, although Bradley didn’t run for reelection in ’96, after 18 years
in the Senate, you could make the case that he was disgusted with the
Democratic administration. Reacting to Gore’s amped-up rhetoric, Bradley
told The Washington Post’s Dan Balz, “This is what I call dartboard
politics. Throw a little dart and hope that it will be a poison dart. I
think the people are fed up with that... I’m not in the business of
responding to every one of their darts.”

The Times insists that Gore is back on track. R.W. Apple, in an Oct. 11
story headlined “Notion of a New Al Gore Begins to Take Root,” absurdly
writes that the “new” Gore is effective because, in the Vice President’s
words, he has “started to connect with the American people.” Apple
doesn’t question the candidate about how it’s taken an extraordinarily
long time to pull that off considering he’s been in the political
limelight for seven years. And Apple, disengaged as ever, takes the word
of Gore’s aides that their candidate started to turn things around on
Aug. 12 at a bingo hall in Iowa. Sure. That’s why since that magical
summer night, Gore’s made a farcical move of his campaign headquarters
to Nashville, fired key advisers and pollsters, and started calling Bill
Bradley names.

Finally, in Sunday’s Washington Post, Patrick Reddy, a Democratic
pollster, wrote that only Gore can defeat Bush. I agree with that, but
not with his strange reasoning. He writes: “But Gore is the only
Democrat who can break the GOP grip on the South...” Uh, Patrick, are
you forgetting that Jeb Bush is governor of Florida and his brother, the
candidate, is governor of Texas? Also, Gore wouldn’t have a shot in
South Carolina or Virginia, and right now he’s losing to Bush in his
home state of Tennessee. It’s possible that Gore could defeat Bush, but
that win will come by carrying New York, California and all of the Rust
Belt states.

John McCain media fan club update

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg was
the most disgusting offender in the past week, with a slimy report on
Oct. 4 filed after a few days on the road with Mr. No Nonsense Weisberg:
“Why do the hacks love McCain? You could start with our admiration for a
quality not many of us possess: physical courage... Reporters respect
McCain less because he takes liberal positions than because of the way
he puts his beliefs ahead of his career as a matter of course... Then
there’s the McCain charm. I doubt I’ll enjoy any part of this 2000
campaign so much as a couple of days spent as part of a three-person
press corps traveling with McCain. He’s funny, friendly, and far too
candid for his own good... He also responds to the press. Unlike the
inaccessible George W. Bush, you can get to McCain easily, and have a
frank, intelligent discussion with him about just about any topic...
When McCain flatters you, it doesn’t feel automatic or calculated. He
truly likes us journalists. It’s his fellow Senators he can’t stand.”

How depressing. Weisberg might give a call to any of 15 reporters in
Arizona and ask how responsive McCain is to their constant calls. And of
course the blowhard is willing to talk to the Washington press right
now: he’s running for president, dummy, and needs all the free publicity
he can get. If that means flattering chumps like Weisberg, he’ll swallow
it. If McCain had the money that Bush does, and the endorsements, he
wouldn’t “truly like us journalists.” He’d avoid them to hold his lead.

Carlson

Tucker Carlson, the excellent Weekly Standard reporter and CNN
television personality, wrote about McCain from a different angle in the
November issue of Talk, perhaps the only readable piece in that flailing
magazine. Carlson agrees that McCain is fun to hang out with, loves his
off-color jokes, his nasty jabs at potential voters on the stump, and
says, “After about an hour you find yourself fighting the urge to crack
a beer and call him ‘John.’” But Carlson doesn’t buy the shtick,
entertaining though it may be.

He writes: “The White House—of course.
Spend enough time with McCain and you begin to forget that he is in the
process of running for president. Or maybe you simply don’t care to
remember. McCain the Man is so superior to McCain the Presidential
Candidate that it seems a shame he didn’t just remain a widely admired
senator.

He continues: “Once, when I asked him to elaborate a bit [about his
views on abortion], McCain explained that, while they might look
divided, activists at both poles of the abortion debate actually ‘share
the same goal.’ I meant to ask a follow-up question, but my head was
spinning too fast.”

Susan Estrich, the manager of Mike Dukakis’ don’t-let-this-happen-to-you
presidential campaign of ’88, isn’t as obsequious as Weisberg in her
Sept. 29 syndicated column, but she’s an admirer as well. Estrich has
conceded the GOP nomination to Gov. Bush, but is pushing for McCain to
be his veep, an event that’s less likely to occur than The New York
Times banning biased reporting. Failing that choice, Estrich proposes a
Bradley-McCain ticket, saying, “A fusion ticket isn’t likely in today’s
politics, but it would certainly be popular… It’s enough to make many
people yearn for a real Reform Party.”

Estrich

Thomas Oliphant, the McGovernite joke pundit for The Boston Globe, wrote
such a stupid piece last week, headlined “True-blue conservative,” that
the McCain machine, such as it is, immediately had copies made and put
it in their stack of campaign materials. Oliphant despises Bush and so
he uses McCain (whom he’d never vote for over Bradley or Gore) as a foil
to belittle the GOP leader. The Beltway insider blathers on about how
honest McCain is, that he’s his own man, putting principle over
expediency, and then comes up with this whopper:

“Now take tax cuts. Bush supports virtually everything on the GOP
congressional wish list, symbolized by that $792 billion monstrosity
that President Clinton just vetoed, half of which was polluted by
special interest business goodies. McCain made the mistake of voting for
it in the Senate, but only out of party loyalty and the view that it
wasn’t going to become law.”

What happened to the guy whose own beliefs trump politics? Oliphant
doesn’t explain, because he can’t.

Finally, The Economist’s “Lexington” weighs in on McCain in its current
issue. “But it’s not so clear that a ‘general pain in the ass’ [how
McCain gleefully describes himself] is what voters want. American
leaders set rules for others. They are the overdog. Others react to
them. This may explain why voters admire, but do not support, Mr.
McCain. He is a courageous man. But his courage lies in resisting what
he thinks is wrong. And Americans may not want a resistance hero as
president.”

So, as you can see, some sanity is to be found amidst the McCain
Scam.

JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and publisher of New York Press. Send your comments to him by clicking here.